Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in answer to an earlier question that the government stopped the robodebt scheme when it was found not to be 'sufficiently legal', I think he said—or words to that effect. Prime Minister, when did the government know that robodebt was defective? Was it after the 76 Administrative Appeals Tribunal cases in 2017? Or was it after the threats of self harm on 14 occasions in 2017? Or was it the legal action by those people who the government was ripping off which forced it to stop the scheme?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wouldn't be the first person who the member who asked the question has verballed before, so I don't accept how he characterised my statements. I'll ask the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to respond.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As soon as government reached the conclusion that the use of averaged income was not sufficient, government moved quickly through its normal processes. That led to my giving a media statement on 19 November last year, saying that the government would no longer continue the use of averaged income to determine debts.

It's important when we consider time lines—and the question asked about time lines—that the start of the use of averaged income data was 26 years ago. Last week, I tabled the automatic letter that was in the ISIS computing system. It showed that it was being used for all correspondence back then. I tabled both that letter and an individual letter. In that, on the second page, it goes through about how a debt has been determined. The letter, from 26 years ago, in 1994, says, 'If you do not reply we will use the tax office's information about your income and we will write to you about how much money you need to pay back'. Let's unpack this: 'We'll use the tax office's information'. Welfare is generated fortnight by fortnight, which is why this government, which did not invent the use of averaged income, stopped it. The only way you can use tax office information is when it's annualised, so 26 years ago the then Department of Social Services, under the Keating government, was using annualised data about your income and said, 'We'll write to you about how much money you need to pay back'.

It is quite clear that 26 years ago, from that day until 19 November last year—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).

The member for Griffith then left the chamber.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

governments for over 26 years have used, as this letter says, tax office information about your income and then have written to people about how much money they owe. That was the established process which was used. The member for McMahon, in his 2010 press release, referenced what Labor had done in 2008 and 2009, with over three million assessments. How many of those assessments were done using this standardised process? The bottom line is this—and it may be inconvenient for those in the House—but these are the facts: for 26 years the use of averaged income from the tax office has been used to determine and crystallise debts.

This side didn't invent it. Indeed, there's no-one in this House that invented it. It was invented 26 years ago, but it's this government which has put a stop to it.